On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 20:26 +0200, Erwin Tenhumberg wrote: > > What you term "non-OOo developers" could mean any of us on the Marketing > > list. > > Some people might feel offended, but yes, I include people like you and > me who do not write code and do not have to make their living from > writing code.
What about people that make a living from OOo in other ways and contribute code (or anything for that matter) back, perhaps by sponsoring a coder. It might not happen now except for Sun but it certainly could happen in the future. Coders can be bought in so anyone who can generate more income to fund coding than one coder is more valuable to the project than a coder. That is why Sun is so powerful. > The whole GPL/foundation question is not just a philosophical issue that > can be discussed by open source supporter/evangelists/advocates. But I think assuming that coders are the only people with an economic interest in working on OOo is equally a mistake. If Open Source is to flourish we need to get away from the only people that matter are coders thing. Ok, without them there is no product but without sustainable income generators to feed them there is no sustainable project either. The OOo community needs sustainable business models that pay for themselves and have the capacity to produce sufficient surplus to contribute back otherwise we will be forever dependent on Sun and a few donations here and there arguing the toss over this conference or that. And what happens if at some point Sun can't or won't fund the coders? A culture that is dependent is a culture that is vulnerable. Its nothing against Sun its just reality. There is masses of EU money that can be bid for. Open Source Academy is funded to about a million UKP from EU money. Leonardo Da Vinci funding targets vocational exchanges up to 100,000 Euro. I have an Italian friend bidding for money for INGOT development in Europe. If large corporates are not going to jump in and so far it seems they aren't, we need to develop our own businesses and income streams. > I see this similar to discussions about speed limits on freeways. > If I don't drive or use a car and if I'm not a government official > responsible for traffic, why should I be the main influencer in a > discussion about speed limits. Maybe not the main influence but you do have legitimate interest. You are probably a tax/insurance payer and you probably foot the bill for accidents if you live in the UK or you pay higher premiums for insurance or you also have an environmental interest that the higher speed gas guzzling affects. There is a lot of talk about community. Community is collective responsibility and interests that transcend governments. Governments provide some workable structure but in general govern by consent of the community as Margaret Thatcher found when there was massive civil disobendience against her poll tax. > Yes, everybody can have an opinion about the GPL/foundation > question, and I actually I have one, too. However, I'm not a > developer, I'm a manager of any developers and I do not a potential > (major) sponsor of something like a foundation. Thus, why should > my opinion be very important? Because you are a member of the community. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
